It was an unusually busy week for fashion lawyers, and the people who love them begrudgingly tolerate their social media assaults. As usual, LAW OF FASHION will provide the highlights in this convenient roundup, but to stay current on your fashion law news, join the official LAW OF FASHION LinkedIn group (and go ahead and follow LOF's Twitter feed, @fashionlawblog, for good measure.)

And now, the news you can probably live without, but will read anyway because it's free...

"U.S. luxury goods maker Tiffany & Co. has launched a counter-claim against Swiss watchmaker Swatch Group AG for damages related to a failed partnership between the two companies. In a statement Monday, Swatch said Tiffany is seeking 541.9 million Swiss francs ($589 million) from Swatch after the Swiss company and its affiliate, Tiffany Watch Co. Ltd, claimed 3.8 billion francs in damages from Tiffany & Co. in December...."

This is one of those disputes that seems like it would be glamorous to work on, until you find yourself employed as a junior associate at one of the mega-firms handling this arbitration, which happens to be taking place in the Netherlands, on behalf of either an American or a Swiss company, and "commuting" back and forth from New York and a Munich document retention warehouse on Sunday-evening red-eyes. (Speaking of which, I should give a quick shoutout to my long, lost friends at Debevoise!)

"The Federal Trade Commission is seeking public comments on its Fur Labeling and Advertising Rules – commonly known as the Fur Rules – and announcing upcoming changes required by Congress.... As of March 18, 2011, the 2010 law eliminates the FTC’s authority to exempt fur products 'of relatively small quantity or value of the fur used' from its Rules (known as the de minimis exemption), and provides a new exemption for furs sold directly by trappers and hunters to customers in certain face-to-face transactions. Finally, the 2010 law requires the FTC to start a review and seek public comment...."

Um, yeah, you shouldn't be buying or selling fur anyway, for reasons explained by Vaute Couture's charming founder, Leanne Mai-ly Hilgart, in this LAW OF FASHION interview. But if you are, you better play by the rules, or the FTC (much like the rhythm) is gonna getcha.

"Now that a major publishing company [Hearst] has been sued by an unpaid intern, others may be reforming their own internship programs in the interest of avoiding a similar situation.... And from what we’re hearing, it sounds like Condé internships are going to be some of the most tightly regulated in the fashion industry...."

"Hailey Clauson, the teenage model who sued Urban Outfitters for $28 million, may finally be heading to court.... Clauson and her parents sued Urban Outfitters upon discovering that Clauson's image was being used on t-shirts and other merchandise sold at the store. [The lawsuit] contends that the pictures were inappropriate, showing the then 15-year-old model "in a blatantly salacious manner with her legs spread, without a bra, revealing portions of her breasts.... [Now, t]he retailer's efforts to get the lawsuit, filed back in August 2011, dismissed have been rejected by New York federal judge George Daniels...."

"The next set of knock-offs are going around the industry. This time, it's McQueen and Jersey Shore star, Snooki. The bags themselves do not share a similar structure. McQueen's version, released several years ago, is a compact box clutch, whereas Snooki's is a larger leather clutch. Regardless, the skull detail rings that both bags have are undeniably similar! This is an instance where McQueen may actually have a case. Fashion law buffs, read on: While it is widely known that utilitarian items (a/k/a "useful articles") are not copyrightable, there is an exception for separable design features [like, perhaps] the skull detail rings on the clutch...."

Blogger Julie Zerbo of The Fashion Law has been on fire these past couple weeks, breaking one knockoff story after another. But her commentary on this episode is particularly interesting because of the "separability" issues she raises. If that word doesn't mean anything to you in the copyright context, revisit this LOF post (and this one, too); if you're still lost, it's probably best to just go ahead and buy this book, which contains a 90-page chapter I wrote on intellectual property issues in fashion. (Psst- e-mail me at ccolman {at} lawoffashion {dot} com for a discount code that's good until March 31st.)

"Abercrombie & Fitch Co.’s sagging stock price has Wall Street speculating about a leveraged buyout of the racy teen retailer. The firm has been through the rumor mill several times now and Cowen and Co. analyst John Kernan ran the numbers for a buyout today and found that the economics of a deal 'can’t be denied'...."

"A 32-year-old woman is seeking compensation from [Hong Kong luxury retailer] Lane Crawford after she said she was locked in a VIP room at the luxury department store while staff looked into her request to authenticate a [Chanel] bag she had bought there.... She is seeking [$6,500 US], along with two Chanel handbags, to compensate for the distress she says she suffered...."

Without a doubt, the strangest fashion law story of the week. No, wait, on second thought, it's a tie between this story and the news that Donald Trump has licensed his name for use on a fragrance... not a hair product, mind you, but a fragrance -- as in, something you put on your body to smell a certain way.

[This post is for entertainment and informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship among any individuals or entities. Any views expressed in this post or at the linked web pages are those of the writer on a particular date, and should not necessarily be attributed to this writer, his law firm, or its clients. LAW OF FASHION does not and cannot warrant the thoroughness or accuracy of the content at the linked web pages.]

NOTHING IN THIS BLOG CONSTITUTES LEGAL ADVICE, and the information contained herein should never be used as a substitute for consulting a lawyer. Use of this blog does not form an attorney-client relationship among anyindividuals or entities. While the administrators of "LAW OF FASHION" endeavor to ensure the accuracy of all posts, and will promptly correct inaccuracies brought to their attention, no warranty is made as to the thoroughness or accuracy of any blog content. Users of this site release and hold harmless Charles Colman Law, PLLC and all related individuals and entities for any information collected regarding visitors to this site or charlescolmanlaw.com, as well as for any other harm resulting from visitors' use of this site or charlescolmanlaw.com. The views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of Charles Colman Law, PLLC, or its clients.

The maintenance of this site, including the collection and creation of its content, is a service offered in conjunction with: